State v. Petty, 2017 Ohio 8732

In Sept. 2014 Lamar Petty was indicted on nine counts stemming from an August 2014 motor-vehicle theft and related offenses, including aggravated robbery (with a one-year firearm specification), grand theft, receiving stolen property, drug possession, and having a weapon while under disability.
On the day trial began (Nov. 24, 2014) the state’s plea offer was placed on the record; Petty initially requested new counsel but ultimately accepted the plea after consulting with his retained attorney.
Petty pled guilty pursuant to the plea offer to aggravated robbery (with firearm spec), grand theft, receiving stolen property, drug possession, and having a weapon while under disability.
After the plea and before sentencing, Petty filed pro se motions to withdraw his plea and to disqualify (replace) counsel; at sentencing Petty declined to proceed on those motions.
The trial court sentenced Petty to an aggregate eight-year prison term (five years on aggravated robbery consecutive to the one-year firearm spec, consecutive 24 months for the weapons-under-disability count, and shorter terms on other counts).
Petty appealed, arguing (1) the court violated double jeopardy by failing to merge the weapons-under-disability count with the aggravated robbery, and (2) he was denied the right to counsel of choice when his day-of-trial request for new counsel was not granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Petty)	Held
Whether having a weapon while under disability must merge with aggravated robbery	Counts are dissimilar because weapon possession occurred before and separate from robbery; separate convictions permitted	Counts are allied offenses committed at same time with same animus, so merger required under double jeopardy	Court: No plain error; offenses do not merge where possession preceded the robbery and involved separate animus; convictions may stand
Whether the trial court violated Petty’s right to counsel by denying his request for new counsel on day of trial	Day-of-trial request was vague and made in a manner suggesting delay; no specific factual allegations to trigger inquiry; trial court acted within discretion	Request for new counsel was denied without adequate inquiry; violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice	Court: No abuse of discretion; defendant failed to state specific grounds, did not meet burden to trigger further inquiry, and later disavowed motions

State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (forfeiture of allied-offense claim absent timely objection; plain-error standard and burden to show allied offenses)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (three-part test for allied offenses: import, separate conduct, separate animus)
Landrum v. State, 53 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 1990) (Crim.R. 52(B) plain-error cautionary standard)
Long v. State, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (framework for plain-error review)
Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (right to counsel of choice is constitutionally protected but not absolute; courts balance against fairness and calendar concerns)
Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1988) (trial court discretion on substitution of counsel)
Haberek v. State, 47 Ohio App.3d 35 (Ohio Ct. App.) (day-of-trial motion for new counsel often viewed as made in bad faith to delay)